- Last Active
Like the App Store, Google charges a 30% commission fee on in-app purchases for apps running on its platforms, including Android TV and Google TV. It is plausible that Apple would be subject to such a fee, or a discounted rate if one was agreed with through Google, for content sold through the Apple TV app.
A key difference is that all other movie and TV purchase and rental platforms - Google, Amazon, Disney, Vudu, FandangoNOW, RedBox, Microsoft etc. allow you to purchase and rent movies and TV shows through the browser. Apple is the only one that forces you to own their hardware - a MacBook, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV or (for as long as they are still being made) iPod - in order to purchase or rent TV shows. There is absolutely no technical reason for not having a web storefront as literally everyone else has offered it from day one and in some cases for approaching 15 years.
Don't get all up-in-arms, I am not saying that Apple is doing anything illegal or unethical here. After all, plenty of alternatives - the 7 listed above and more - do exist. And I would propose that the primary reason for Apple TV on a Google TV device anyway is to watch Ted Lasso. I am just pointing out that the result of avoiding the 30% means that one is now required to own Apple hardware to purchase Apple content, a requirement that other platform providers do not impose.
The Verge - a very pro Apple site - did mention this (in an otherwise glowing review):
It was a different story with graphics performance, however. Apple, in its keynote, claimed that the M1 Ultra would outperform Nvidia’s RTX 3090. I have no idea where Apple’s getting that from. We ran Geekbench Compute, which tests the power of a system’s GPU, on both the Mac Studio and a gaming PC with an RTX 3090, a Core i9-10900, and 64GB of RAM. And the Mac Studio got… destroyed. It got less than half the score that the RTX 3090 did on that test — not only is it not beating Nvidia’s chip, but it’s not even coming close.
Beats said:I think 30% is little for Apple. Hope they reach 50% soon. Would love to see WearOS or whatever name of the month, go down.
1. You think that 30% is little for Apple when:
A. they didn't invent this category (Google and Samsung were there first)
B. their share in phones is 15%
C. their share in computers - can't call them PCs anymore I guess - is 8% and has actually fallen behind ChromeOS
D. their share in TV boxes (Apple TV), streaming subscriptions (Apple TV+) and smart speakers (HomePod) is so low that most analysts don't even listed
E. the only areas where their market share is bigger is wireless headphones (declining) and tablets (barely)
2. Wear OS has had its name since 2018. But you are one to talk since Apple changes the name of its platforms all the time too (iPhone OS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, watchOS, OS X, macOS) etc. But OK when you guys do it right?
3. Market share is unlikely to decline. It went up because Samsung and Google finally signed a truce resulting in Samsung ditching Tizen and their Galaxy Fit RTOS trackers in order to be Wear OS exclusive. Also, Google is FINALLY going to come out with a Pixel Watch this year. https://www.royalsblue.com/pixel-watch-could-be-controlled-without-touching-the-screen/
There are some Android/Google enthusiasts who will never buy a Samsung product (don't ask why but they have a host of reasons) so yes it will sell.
mjtomlin said:they will also update and continue to sell the Intel model, as a large chunk of their pro-level customers' workflows may be tied to Intel. They also continue to sell Intel-based Mac mini because they are still extremely popular with server farms.
2. I really question why anyone would build a server farm out of $1000 machines with 4 year old Intel laptop CPUs: for macOS software the M1 is faster and cheaper for less power and for everything else an AMD Zen 3 Ryzen 5 is the same. In any event, Apple is only offering the Core i5 Mac Mini because the M1 has limitations (16 GB RAM, 2 external displays, initially 1 GB Ethernet). I say that they should have replaced it with an M1 Pro Mac Mini, and if 9to5 Mac is to be believed, it was strongly considered. But it appears that they are going to use the M2 to replace the Core i5 and Core i7 Mac Minis. In this scenario the M1 Mac Mini sticks around as an inexpensive entry level device. As it has been rumored that the MacBook Air refresh will also stick with the M1 - upgrading from 7 GPU cores to 8 - then that fits. I haven't read anything about the 13" MacBook Pro, but that had a Core i7 model at one time too, right? So it would make sense to give that one an M2 chip also.
Apple is going to refresh Apple Silicon on a 2 year cadence. Makes sense to have the MacBook Air, Mac Mini, 13" MacBook Pro and Mac Pro every even year using the Mx chip with the 14" MacBook Pro, 16" MacBook Pro, Mac Studio and iMac using the Mx Pro, Mx Max and Mx Ultra chips every odd year.
About the Intel comparisons, it really looks like you guys need to realize that the current leader in this sector is AMD. By a significant margin. And when their Zen 4 Threadripper comes out in 2023 it will be even worse. Between the AMD Threadripper and the M1 Ultra, it is safe to say that Intel's strength is going to be laptops and low end to midrange desktops. Their options perform better than AMD and are cheaper than Apple. But workstations are going to be Apple #1 and AMD #2 for pure performance as well as power per watt.